Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1421

control, N = 721

treatment, N = 701

p-value2

age

140

50.66 ± 12.64 (25 - 74)

51.24 ± 12.39 (25 - 74)

50.09 ± 12.95 (28 - 73)

0.591

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

142

0.915

f

109 (77%)

55 (76%)

54 (77%)

m

33 (23%)

17 (24%)

16 (23%)

occupation

142

0.704

day_training

2 (1.4%)

2 (2.8%)

0 (0%)

full_time

18 (13%)

9 (12%)

9 (13%)

homemaker

12 (8.5%)

5 (6.9%)

7 (10%)

other

2 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.9%)

part_time

25 (18%)

12 (17%)

13 (19%)

retired

38 (27%)

19 (26%)

19 (27%)

self_employ

7 (4.9%)

4 (5.6%)

3 (4.3%)

student

2 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.9%)

t_and_e

2 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

unemploy

34 (24%)

20 (28%)

14 (20%)

marital

142

0.818

cohabitation

1 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.4%)

divore

15 (11%)

10 (14%)

5 (7.1%)

in_relationship

4 (2.8%)

2 (2.8%)

2 (2.9%)

married

39 (27%)

20 (28%)

19 (27%)

none

72 (51%)

34 (47%)

38 (54%)

seperation

3 (2.1%)

2 (2.8%)

1 (1.4%)

widow

8 (5.6%)

4 (5.6%)

4 (5.7%)

edu

142

0.176

bachelor

35 (25%)

13 (18%)

22 (31%)

diploma

27 (19%)

18 (25%)

9 (13%)

hd_ad

4 (2.8%)

3 (4.2%)

1 (1.4%)

postgraduate

12 (8.5%)

5 (6.9%)

7 (10%)

primary

9 (6.3%)

3 (4.2%)

6 (8.6%)

secondary_1_3

16 (11%)

9 (12%)

7 (10%)

secondary_4_5

32 (23%)

19 (26%)

13 (19%)

secondary_6_7

7 (4.9%)

2 (2.8%)

5 (7.1%)

fam_income

142

0.980

10001_12000

6 (4.2%)

2 (2.8%)

4 (5.7%)

12001_14000

7 (4.9%)

3 (4.2%)

4 (5.7%)

14001_16000

8 (5.6%)

3 (4.2%)

5 (7.1%)

16001_18000

4 (2.8%)

2 (2.8%)

2 (2.9%)

18001_20000

6 (4.2%)

4 (5.6%)

2 (2.9%)

20001_above

27 (19%)

15 (21%)

12 (17%)

2001_4000

20 (14%)

11 (15%)

9 (13%)

4001_6000

14 (9.9%)

6 (8.3%)

8 (11%)

6001_8000

12 (8.5%)

7 (9.7%)

5 (7.1%)

8001_10000

11 (7.7%)

5 (6.9%)

6 (8.6%)

below_2000

27 (19%)

14 (19%)

13 (19%)

medication

142

125 (88%)

63 (88%)

62 (89%)

0.844

onset_duration

139

15.17 ± 10.19 (0 - 56)

15.80 ± 10.86 (0 - 56)

14.49 ± 9.45 (0 - 35)

0.451

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

137

35.72 ± 13.94 (10 - 65)

35.28 ± 12.65 (10 - 61)

36.17 ± 15.25 (14 - 65)

0.709

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1421

control, N = 721

treatment, N = 701

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

142

3.19 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

3.25 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.12 (1 - 5)

0.539

recovery_stage_b

142

17.93 ± 2.79 (8 - 24)

17.89 ± 2.91 (8 - 24)

17.97 ± 2.69 (13 - 24)

0.861

ras_confidence

142

29.97 ± 5.14 (15 - 45)

29.83 ± 4.84 (15 - 40)

30.11 ± 5.47 (18 - 45)

0.746

ras_willingness

142

11.79 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.67 ± 2.06 (5 - 15)

11.91 ± 2.11 (7 - 15)

0.480

ras_goal

142

17.34 ± 3.10 (11 - 25)

17.12 ± 2.88 (11 - 24)

17.56 ± 3.33 (11 - 25)

0.409

ras_reliance

142

13.20 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)

12.99 ± 2.79 (5 - 18)

13.41 ± 3.06 (7 - 20)

0.385

ras_domination

142

9.92 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

10.17 ± 2.30 (3 - 15)

9.67 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)

0.221

symptom

142

29.92 ± 9.34 (14 - 56)

29.81 ± 9.60 (14 - 55)

30.04 ± 9.12 (15 - 56)

0.880

slof_work

142

22.42 ± 4.82 (10 - 30)

22.75 ± 4.43 (13 - 30)

22.07 ± 5.20 (10 - 30)

0.403

slof_relationship

142

25.15 ± 6.02 (9 - 35)

24.82 ± 6.05 (9 - 35)

25.49 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)

0.511

satisfaction

142

20.50 ± 7.21 (5 - 35)

19.93 ± 6.77 (5 - 33)

21.09 ± 7.65 (5 - 35)

0.342

mhc_emotional

142

10.90 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.64 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)

11.17 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)

0.406

mhc_social

142

14.96 ± 5.66 (5 - 30)

14.67 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)

15.27 ± 5.75 (5 - 29)

0.526

mhc_psychological

142

21.89 ± 6.45 (6 - 36)

21.78 ± 6.07 (7 - 36)

22.00 ± 6.87 (6 - 36)

0.838

resilisnce

142

16.65 ± 4.71 (6 - 30)

16.26 ± 4.18 (6 - 24)

17.04 ± 5.21 (6 - 30)

0.327

social_provision

142

13.55 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

13.10 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)

14.01 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)

0.057

els_value_living

142

16.94 ± 3.16 (5 - 25)

16.58 ± 2.92 (6 - 22)

17.30 ± 3.37 (5 - 25)

0.177

els_life_fulfill

142

12.71 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)

12.35 ± 3.26 (5 - 19)

13.09 ± 3.59 (4 - 20)

0.202

els

142

29.65 ± 6.00 (9 - 45)

28.93 ± 5.50 (11 - 38)

30.39 ± 6.43 (9 - 45)

0.149

social_connect

142

26.58 ± 9.52 (8 - 48)

26.75 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

26.40 ± 9.92 (8 - 48)

0.828

shs_agency

142

14.29 ± 5.18 (3 - 24)

13.90 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

14.69 ± 5.57 (3 - 24)

0.369

shs_pathway

142

16.01 ± 4.07 (4 - 24)

15.65 ± 3.92 (5 - 24)

16.39 ± 4.22 (4 - 24)

0.285

shs

142

30.30 ± 8.85 (7 - 48)

29.56 ± 8.32 (8 - 45)

31.07 ± 9.36 (7 - 48)

0.309

esteem

142

12.60 ± 1.64 (9 - 20)

12.62 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.57 ± 1.67 (10 - 20)

0.847

mlq_search

142

14.82 ± 3.53 (3 - 21)

14.64 ± 3.34 (6 - 21)

15.00 ± 3.72 (3 - 21)

0.544

mlq_presence

142

13.42 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.32 ± 3.81 (4 - 21)

13.53 ± 4.71 (3 - 21)

0.771

mlq

142

28.24 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

27.96 ± 6.31 (10 - 40)

28.53 ± 7.60 (6 - 42)

0.627

empower

142

19.24 ± 4.27 (6 - 30)

18.93 ± 4.15 (11 - 30)

19.56 ± 4.39 (6 - 30)

0.383

ismi_resistance

142

14.53 ± 2.52 (5 - 20)

14.47 ± 2.19 (10 - 20)

14.59 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

0.790

ismi_discrimation

142

11.61 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)

11.97 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

11.24 ± 3.25 (5 - 20)

0.166

sss_affective

142

9.94 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

10.01 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)

9.87 ± 3.61 (3 - 18)

0.811

sss_behavior

142

9.66 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

9.88 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.44 ± 3.68 (3 - 18)

0.494

sss_cognitive

142

8.20 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

8.26 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

8.14 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.847

sss

142

27.81 ± 10.15 (9 - 54)

28.15 ± 10.19 (9 - 54)

27.46 ± 10.16 (9 - 54)

0.684

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.25

0.139

2.98, 3.52

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.121

0.197

-0.508, 0.265

0.539

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.021

0.216

-0.402, 0.444

0.922

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.466

0.306

-0.133, 1.07

0.130

Pseudo R square

0.018

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.337

17.2, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.083

0.480

-0.859, 1.02

0.864

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.493

0.482

-1.44, 0.452

0.310

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.973

0.683

-0.365, 2.31

0.158

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.607

28.6, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.281

0.864

-1.41, 1.98

0.746

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.766

0.672

-0.551, 2.08

0.258

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.998

0.951

-0.866, 2.86

0.297

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.245

11.2, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.248

0.348

-0.435, 0.930

0.478

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.403

0.269

-0.929, 0.124

0.139

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.675

0.380

-0.070, 1.42

0.080

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.1

0.373

16.4, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.432

0.532

-0.610, 1.47

0.417

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.116

0.466

-1.03, 0.797

0.803

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.02

0.660

-0.273, 2.31

0.126

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.339

12.3, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.428

0.482

-0.517, 1.37

0.376

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.374

0.371

-0.353, 1.10

0.317

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.820

0.525

-0.209, 1.85

0.123

Pseudo R square

0.034

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.2

0.276

9.63, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.495

0.393

-1.26, 0.274

0.209

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.431

0.378

-1.17, 0.310

0.258

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.41

0.535

0.363, 2.46

0.010

Pseudo R square

0.022

symptom

(Intercept)

29.8

1.106

27.6, 32.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.237

1.575

-2.85, 3.32

0.880

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.321

0.949

-2.18, 1.54

0.737

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.38

1.343

-4.01, 1.25

0.308

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.7

0.567

21.6, 23.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.679

0.808

-2.26, 0.905

0.402

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.351

0.625

-1.58, 0.874

0.576

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.567

0.884

-1.17, 2.30

0.524

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.8

0.706

23.4, 26.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.666

1.005

-1.30, 2.64

0.509

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.549

0.746

-2.01, 0.914

0.464

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.984

1.056

-1.09, 3.05

0.354

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

0.855

18.3, 21.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.16

1.218

-1.23, 3.54

0.344

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.671

0.912

-1.12, 2.46

0.464

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.624

1.290

-1.90, 3.15

0.630

Pseudo R square

0.013

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.444

9.77, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.533

0.632

-0.706, 1.77

0.401

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.262

0.447

-0.614, 1.14

0.560

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.011

0.632

-1.25, 1.23

0.986

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.7

0.688

13.3, 16.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.605

0.980

-1.32, 2.52

0.538

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.776

0.757

-0.707, 2.26

0.309

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.260

1.071

-1.84, 2.36

0.809

Pseudo R square

0.009

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.788

20.2, 23.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.222

1.123

-1.98, 2.42

0.843

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.805

0.874

-0.908, 2.52

0.360

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.047

1.236

-2.38, 2.47

0.970

Pseudo R square

0.004

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.542

15.2, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.779

0.772

-0.734, 2.29

0.314

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.036

0.626

-1.19, 1.26

0.955

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.75

0.885

0.010, 3.48

0.052

Pseudo R square

0.036

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.338

12.4, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.917

0.481

-0.025, 1.86

0.058

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.634

0.413

-1.44, 0.175

0.128

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.851

0.585

-0.294, 2.00

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.046

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.374

15.8, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.717

0.533

-0.328, 1.76

0.181

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.231

0.420

-0.592, 1.05

0.583

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.185

0.594

-0.980, 1.35

0.757

Pseudo R square

0.017

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.397

11.6, 13.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.738

0.566

-0.370, 1.85

0.194

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.377

0.386

-0.380, 1.13

0.332

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.091

0.546

-0.979, 1.16

0.868

Pseudo R square

0.016

els

(Intercept)

28.9

0.706

27.5, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.46

1.005

-0.515, 3.43

0.150

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.613

0.656

-0.672, 1.90

0.353

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.202

0.928

-1.62, 2.02

0.829

Pseudo R square

0.019

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.7

1.138

24.5, 29.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.350

1.620

-3.53, 2.83

0.829

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.07

1.058

-1.00, 3.15

0.314

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.76

1.497

-6.70, -0.828

0.014

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.9

0.609

12.7, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.783

0.867

-0.916, 2.48

0.368

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.059

0.593

-1.22, 1.10

0.922

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.889

0.838

-0.754, 2.53

0.292

Pseudo R square

0.013

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.7

0.473

14.7, 16.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.733

0.674

-0.588, 2.05

0.279

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.107

0.478

-0.830, 1.04

0.823

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.128

0.676

-1.20, 1.45

0.850

Pseudo R square

0.010

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.032

27.5, 31.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.52

1.471

-1.37, 4.40

0.304

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.037

0.983

-1.89, 1.96

0.970

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

1.391

-1.72, 3.74

0.470

Pseudo R square

0.012

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.182

12.3, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.054

0.259

-0.562, 0.455

0.837

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.128

0.276

-0.413, 0.669

0.645

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.040

0.391

-0.726, 0.806

0.919

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.6

0.413

13.8, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.361

0.589

-0.793, 1.51

0.540

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.489

0.530

-0.550, 1.53

0.359

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.704

0.750

-2.17, 0.766

0.351

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.500

12.3, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.209

0.713

-1.19, 1.61

0.770

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.348

0.573

-0.776, 1.47

0.546

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.062

0.811

-1.53, 1.65

0.940

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq

(Intercept)

28.0

0.826

26.3, 29.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.570

1.176

-1.73, 2.88

0.628

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.838

0.967

-1.06, 2.73

0.389

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.630

1.368

-3.31, 2.05

0.647

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.499

18.0, 19.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.627

0.711

-0.766, 2.02

0.379

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.538

0.497

-0.435, 1.51

0.282

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.616

0.703

-1.99, 0.762

0.384

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.294

13.9, 15.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.113

0.418

-0.707, 0.934

0.787

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.183

0.397

-0.961, 0.595

0.646

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.849

0.562

-0.252, 1.95

0.134

Pseudo R square

0.014

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.370

11.2, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.729

0.527

-1.76, 0.303

0.168

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.131

0.413

-0.940, 0.678

0.752

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.094

0.584

-1.24, 1.05

0.872

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.0

0.414

9.20, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.142

0.590

-1.30, 1.01

0.809

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.012

0.454

-0.877, 0.902

0.978

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.15

0.642

-2.41, 0.106

0.077

Pseudo R square

0.016

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.88

0.437

9.02, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.432

0.622

-1.65, 0.788

0.488

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.164

0.476

-1.10, 0.770

0.731

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.503

0.674

-1.82, 0.818

0.458

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.26

0.431

7.42, 9.11

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.121

0.615

-1.33, 1.08

0.844

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.417

0.484

-0.531, 1.37

0.391

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.27

0.685

-2.61, 0.076

0.068

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss

(Intercept)

28.2

1.188

25.8, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.696

1.692

-4.01, 2.62

0.682

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.165

1.185

-2.16, 2.49

0.890

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.72

1.676

-6.01, 0.561

0.108

Pseudo R square

0.013

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.25 (95% CI [2.98, 3.52], t(200) = 23.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27], t(200) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.44], t(200) = 0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.07], t(200) = 1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.89 (95% CI [17.23, 18.55], t(200) = 53.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.02], t(200) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.45], t(200) = -1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.31], t(200) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.64, 31.02], t(200) = 49.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.98], t(200) = 0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.08], t(200) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.86], t(200) = 1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.19, 12.15], t(200) = 47.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.93], t(200) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.12], t(200) = -1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.42], t(200) = 1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.12 (95% CI [16.39, 17.86], t(200) = 45.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.47], t(200) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.80], t(200) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 2.31], t(200) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.32, 13.65], t(200) = 38.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.37], t(200) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.10], t(200) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.85], t(200) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.63, 10.71], t(200) = 36.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.26, 0.27], t(200) = -1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.31], t(200) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [0.36, 2.46], t(200) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.16, 1.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.81 (95% CI [27.64, 31.97], t(200) = 26.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.85, 3.32], t(200) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.18, 1.54], t(200) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.38, 95% CI [-4.01, 1.25], t(200) = -1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.52e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.75 (95% CI [21.64, 23.86], t(200) = 40.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.91], t(200) = -0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.87], t(200) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.17, 2.30], t(200) = 0.64, p = 0.522; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.82 (95% CI [23.44, 26.20], t(200) = 35.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.64], t(200) = 0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.91], t(200) = -0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-1.09, 3.05], t(200) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.93 (95% CI [18.25, 21.61], t(200) = 23.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-1.23, 3.54], t(200) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.46], t(200) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.90, 3.15], t(200) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.64 (95% CI [9.77, 11.51], t(200) = 23.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.77], t(200) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.14], t(200) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.23], t(200) = -0.02, p = 0.986; Std. beta = -2.92e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.67 (95% CI [13.32, 16.01], t(200) = 21.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.52], t(200) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.26], t(200) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.84, 2.36], t(200) = 0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.78 (95% CI [20.23, 23.32], t(200) = 27.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.42], t(200) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.52], t(200) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.38, 2.47], t(200) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 7.03e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [15.20, 17.33], t(200) = 30.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.29], t(200) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.26], t(200) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 7.73e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [0.01, 3.48], t(200) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [2.19e-03, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.10 (95% CI [12.44, 13.76], t(200) = 38.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.86], t(200) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-8.56e-03, 0.63])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.18], t(200) = -1.54, p = 0.125; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.00], t(200) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.58 (95% CI [15.85, 17.32], t(200) = 44.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.76], t(200) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.05], t(200) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.35], t(200) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.35 (95% CI [11.57, 13.13], t(200) = 31.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.85], t(200) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.13], t(200) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.16], t(200) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.93 (95% CI [27.55, 30.31], t(200) = 40.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.52, 3.43], t(200) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.90], t(200) = 0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.62, 2.02], t(200) = 0.22, p = 0.828; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.75 (95% CI [24.52, 28.98], t(200) = 23.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-3.53, 2.83], t(200) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-1.00, 3.15], t(200) = 1.01, p = 0.311; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.76, 95% CI [-6.70, -0.83], t(200) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.90 (95% CI [12.71, 15.10], t(200) = 22.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.48], t(200) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.10], t(200) = -0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.53], t(200) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.65 (95% CI [14.73, 16.58], t(200) = 33.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.05], t(200) = 1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.04], t(200) = 0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.45], t(200) = 0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.53, 31.58], t(200) = 28.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-1.37, 4.40], t(200) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.96], t(200) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 4.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.72, 3.74], t(200) = 0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.62 (95% CI [12.27, 12.98], t(200) = 69.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.45], t(200) = -0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.67], t(200) = 0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.81], t(200) = 0.10, p = 0.919; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.64 (95% CI [13.83, 15.45], t(200) = 35.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.51], t(200) = 0.61, p = 0.540; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.53], t(200) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.77], t(200) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.46e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.34, 14.30], t(200) = 26.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.61], t(200) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.47], t(200) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.65], t(200) = 0.08, p = 0.939; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.96 (95% CI [26.34, 29.58], t(200) = 33.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.73, 2.88], t(200) = 0.48, p = 0.628; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-1.06, 2.73], t(200) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-3.31, 2.05], t(200) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.43e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.93 (95% CI [17.95, 19.91], t(200) = 37.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.77, 2.02], t(200) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.51], t(200) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.76], t(200) = -0.88, p = 0.381; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.47 (95% CI [13.90, 15.05], t(200) = 49.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.93], t(200) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.60], t(200) = -0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.95], t(200) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.97 (95% CI [11.25, 12.70], t(200) = 32.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.30], t(200) = -1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.68], t(200) = -0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.05], t(200) = -0.16, p = 0.872; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.20, 10.83], t(200) = 24.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.01], t(200) = -0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.90], t(200) = 0.03, p = 0.978; Std. beta = 3.48e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.11], t(200) = -1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.88 (95% CI [9.02, 10.73], t(200) = 22.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.79], t(200) = -0.69, p = 0.487; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.77], t(200) = -0.34, p = 0.730; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.82], t(200) = -0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.26 (95% CI [7.42, 9.11], t(200) = 19.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.08], t(200) = -0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.37], t(200) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.08], t(200) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.82, 30.48], t(200) = 23.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-4.01, 2.62], t(200) = -0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-2.16, 2.49], t(200) = 0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.72, 95% CI [-6.01, 0.56], t(200) = -1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

650.506

660.490

-322.253

644.506

recovery_stage_a

random

6

651.459

671.426

-319.729

639.459

5.047

3

0.168

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,006.730

1,016.714

-500.365

1,000.730

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,010.084

1,030.052

-499.042

998.084

2.646

3

0.450

ras_confidence

null

3

1,226.670

1,236.654

-610.335

1,220.670

ras_confidence

random

6

1,224.189

1,244.156

-606.094

1,212.189

8.481

3

0.037

ras_willingness

null

3

847.661

857.644

-420.830

841.661

ras_willingness

random

6

848.849

868.816

-418.424

836.849

4.812

3

0.186

ras_goal

null

3

1,037.261

1,047.244

-515.630

1,031.261

ras_goal

random

6

1,037.566

1,057.533

-512.783

1,025.566

5.695

3

0.127

ras_reliance

null

3

989.377

999.361

-491.689

983.377

ras_reliance

random

6

982.644

1,002.611

-485.322

970.644

12.733

3

0.005

ras_domination

null

3

924.483

934.466

-459.241

918.483

ras_domination

random

6

922.770

942.737

-455.385

910.770

7.713

3

0.052

symptom

null

3

1,438.213

1,448.197

-716.106

1,432.213

symptom

random

6

1,440.872

1,460.840

-714.436

1,428.872

3.341

3

0.342

slof_work

null

3

1,190.793

1,200.777

-592.397

1,184.793

slof_work

random

6

1,195.863

1,215.830

-591.931

1,183.863

0.930

3

0.818

slof_relationship

null

3

1,276.845

1,286.828

-635.422

1,270.845

slof_relationship

random

6

1,281.066

1,301.033

-634.533

1,269.066

1.779

3

0.620

satisfaction

null

3

1,358.822

1,368.806

-676.411

1,352.822

satisfaction

random

6

1,360.974

1,380.942

-674.487

1,348.974

3.848

3

0.278

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,079.377

1,089.361

-536.689

1,073.377

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,083.948

1,103.915

-535.974

1,071.948

1.430

3

0.699

mhc_social

null

3

1,272.412

1,282.395

-633.206

1,266.412

mhc_social

random

6

1,274.951

1,294.918

-631.475

1,262.951

3.461

3

0.326

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,327.859

1,337.843

-660.930

1,321.859

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,331.983

1,351.950

-659.991

1,319.983

1.877

3

0.598

resilisnce

null

3

1,186.792

1,196.775

-590.396

1,180.792

resilisnce

random

6

1,182.312

1,202.279

-585.156

1,170.312

10.480

3

0.015

social_provision

null

3

996.527

1,006.511

-495.264

990.527

social_provision

random

6

993.830

1,013.797

-490.915

981.830

8.697

3

0.034

els_value_living

null

3

1,024.153

1,034.137

-509.077

1,018.153

els_value_living

random

6

1,026.631

1,046.598

-507.315

1,014.631

3.522

3

0.318

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,032.375

1,042.358

-513.187

1,026.375

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,033.985

1,053.953

-510.993

1,021.985

4.389

3

0.222

els

null

3

1,264.400

1,274.383

-629.200

1,258.400

els

random

6

1,265.587

1,285.554

-626.794

1,253.587

4.813

3

0.186

social_connect

null

3

1,464.393

1,474.376

-729.196

1,458.393

social_connect

random

6

1,462.365

1,482.332

-725.182

1,450.365

8.028

3

0.045

shs_agency

null

3

1,207.528

1,217.512

-600.764

1,201.528

shs_agency

random

6

1,210.108

1,230.076

-599.054

1,198.108

3.420

3

0.331

shs_pathway

null

3

1,106.588

1,116.571

-550.294

1,100.588

shs_pathway

random

6

1,110.915

1,130.882

-549.457

1,098.915

1.673

3

0.643

shs

null

3

1,421.916

1,431.899

-707.958

1,415.916

shs

random

6

1,425.238

1,445.205

-706.619

1,413.238

2.678

3

0.444

esteem

null

3

756.194

766.178

-375.097

750.194

esteem

random

6

761.570

781.538

-374.785

749.570

0.624

3

0.891

mlq_search

null

3

1,077.591

1,087.575

-535.795

1,071.591

mlq_search

random

6

1,082.446

1,102.413

-535.223

1,070.446

1.145

3

0.766

mlq_presence

null

3

1,143.558

1,153.542

-568.779

1,137.558

mlq_presence

random

6

1,148.550

1,168.517

-568.275

1,136.550

1.008

3

0.799

mlq

null

3

1,352.402

1,362.385

-673.201

1,346.402

mlq

random

6

1,357.448

1,377.415

-672.724

1,345.448

0.954

3

0.812

empower

null

3

1,126.720

1,136.704

-560.360

1,120.720

empower

random

6

1,131.008

1,150.976

-559.504

1,119.008

1.712

3

0.634

ismi_resistance

null

3

945.178

955.162

-469.589

939.178

ismi_resistance

random

6

947.395

967.362

-467.698

935.395

3.783

3

0.286

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,017.486

1,027.469

-505.743

1,011.486

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,020.892

1,040.859

-504.446

1,008.892

2.594

3

0.459

sss_affective

null

3

1,066.265

1,076.249

-530.133

1,060.265

sss_affective

random

6

1,065.386

1,085.353

-526.693

1,053.386

6.879

3

0.076

sss_behavior

null

3

1,084.017

1,094.001

-539.009

1,078.017

sss_behavior

random

6

1,087.039

1,107.007

-537.520

1,075.039

2.978

3

0.395

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,083.456

1,093.439

-538.728

1,077.456

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,085.062

1,105.030

-536.531

1,073.062

4.394

3

0.222

sss

null

3

1,488.027

1,498.011

-741.014

1,482.027

sss

random

6

1,488.624

1,508.591

-738.312

1,476.624

5.403

3

0.145

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

72

3.25 ± 1.18

70

3.13 ± 1.18

0.539

0.127

recovery_stage_a

2nd

32

3.27 ± 1.15

-0.022

32

3.62 ± 1.15

-0.510

0.230

-0.361

recovery_stage_b

1st

72

17.89 ± 2.86

70

17.97 ± 2.86

0.864

-0.040

recovery_stage_b

2nd

32

17.40 ± 2.70

0.236

32

18.45 ± 2.70

-0.230

0.120

-0.505

ras_confidence

1st

72

29.83 ± 5.15

70

30.11 ± 5.15

0.746

-0.100

ras_confidence

2nd

32

30.60 ± 4.40

-0.273

32

31.88 ± 4.42

-0.629

0.247

-0.456

ras_willingness

1st

72

11.67 ± 2.08

70

11.91 ± 2.08

0.478

-0.221

ras_willingness

2nd

32

11.26 ± 1.77

0.359

32

12.19 ± 1.78

-0.243

0.038

-0.823

ras_goal

1st

72

17.12 ± 3.17

70

17.56 ± 3.17

0.417

-0.219

ras_goal

2nd

32

17.01 ± 2.83

0.059

32

18.46 ± 2.84

-0.457

0.042

-0.735

ras_reliance

1st

72

12.99 ± 2.87

70

13.41 ± 2.87

0.376

-0.277

ras_reliance

2nd

32

13.36 ± 2.45

-0.242

32

14.61 ± 2.46

-0.771

0.043

-0.806

ras_domination

1st

72

10.17 ± 2.34

70

9.67 ± 2.34

0.209

0.305

ras_domination

2nd

32

9.74 ± 2.17

0.265

32

10.65 ± 2.17

-0.604

0.093

-0.564

symptom

1st

72

29.81 ± 9.38

70

30.04 ± 9.38

0.880

-0.061

symptom

2nd

32

29.49 ± 7.39

0.082

32

28.34 ± 7.44

0.437

0.538

0.294

slof_work

1st

72

22.75 ± 4.81

70

22.07 ± 4.81

0.402

0.260

slof_work

2nd

32

22.40 ± 4.10

0.135

32

22.29 ± 4.12

-0.083

0.914

0.043

slof_relationship

1st

72

24.82 ± 5.99

70

25.49 ± 5.99

0.509

-0.215

slof_relationship

2nd

32

24.27 ± 5.03

0.177

32

25.92 ± 5.06

-0.140

0.192

-0.532

satisfaction

1st

72

19.93 ± 7.25

70

21.09 ± 7.25

0.344

-0.304

satisfaction

2nd

32

20.60 ± 6.11

-0.177

32

22.38 ± 6.14

-0.342

0.247

-0.469

mhc_emotional

1st

72

10.64 ± 3.76

70

11.17 ± 3.76

0.401

-0.288

mhc_emotional

2nd

32

10.90 ± 3.11

-0.141

32

11.42 ± 3.13

-0.135

0.504

-0.282

mhc_social

1st

72

14.67 ± 5.84

70

15.27 ± 5.84

0.538

-0.191

mhc_social

2nd

32

15.44 ± 4.97

-0.246

32

16.31 ± 4.99

-0.328

0.488

-0.274

mhc_psychological

1st

72

21.78 ± 6.69

70

22.00 ± 6.69

0.843

-0.061

mhc_psychological

2nd

32

22.58 ± 5.71

-0.221

32

22.85 ± 5.74

-0.233

0.851

-0.074

resilisnce

1st

72

16.26 ± 4.60

70

17.04 ± 4.60

0.314

-0.297

resilisnce

2nd

32

16.30 ± 3.99

-0.014

32

18.82 ± 4.00

-0.679

0.012

-0.962

social_provision

1st

72

13.10 ± 2.86

70

14.01 ± 2.86

0.058

-0.526

social_provision

2nd

32

12.46 ± 2.54

0.364

32

14.23 ± 2.55

-0.124

0.006

-1.014

els_value_living

1st

72

16.58 ± 3.18

70

17.30 ± 3.18

0.181

-0.408

els_value_living

2nd

32

16.81 ± 2.73

-0.132

32

17.72 ± 2.74

-0.237

0.188

-0.513

els_life_fulfill

1st

72

12.35 ± 3.37

70

13.09 ± 3.37

0.194

-0.463

els_life_fulfill

2nd

32

12.72 ± 2.75

-0.236

32

13.55 ± 2.77

-0.294

0.231

-0.520

els

1st

72

28.93 ± 5.99

70

30.39 ± 5.99

0.150

-0.539

els

2nd

32

29.54 ± 4.83

-0.227

32

31.20 ± 4.86

-0.302

0.173

-0.614

social_connect

1st

72

26.75 ± 9.65

70

26.40 ± 9.65

0.829

0.080

social_connect

2nd

32

27.82 ± 7.78

-0.246

32

23.71 ± 7.83

0.617

0.036

0.944

shs_agency

1st

72

13.90 ± 5.16

70

14.69 ± 5.16

0.368

-0.320

shs_agency

2nd

32

13.84 ± 4.22

0.024

32

15.52 ± 4.25

-0.339

0.116

-0.683

shs_pathway

1st

72

15.65 ± 4.02

70

16.39 ± 4.02

0.279

-0.370

shs_pathway

2nd

32

15.76 ± 3.32

-0.054

32

16.62 ± 3.34

-0.119

0.302

-0.435

shs

1st

72

29.56 ± 8.76

70

31.07 ± 8.76

0.304

-0.374

shs

2nd

32

29.59 ± 7.11

-0.009

32

32.12 ± 7.15

-0.258

0.158

-0.623

esteem

1st

72

12.62 ± 1.54

70

12.57 ± 1.54

0.837

0.044

esteem

2nd

32

12.75 ± 1.49

-0.105

32

12.74 ± 1.49

-0.138

0.971

0.011

mlq_search

1st

72

14.64 ± 3.51

70

15.00 ± 3.51

0.540

-0.160

mlq_search

2nd

32

15.13 ± 3.17

-0.217

32

14.78 ± 3.17

0.096

0.666

0.152

mlq_presence

1st

72

13.32 ± 4.25

70

13.53 ± 4.25

0.770

-0.087

mlq_presence

2nd

32

13.67 ± 3.67

-0.145

32

13.94 ± 3.69

-0.170

0.769

-0.113

mlq

1st

72

27.96 ± 7.01

70

28.53 ± 7.01

0.628

-0.140

mlq

2nd

32

28.80 ± 6.11

-0.206

32

28.74 ± 6.13

-0.051

0.969

0.015

empower

1st

72

18.93 ± 4.23

70

19.56 ± 4.23

0.379

-0.305

empower

2nd

32

19.47 ± 3.49

-0.262

32

19.48 ± 3.51

0.038

0.991

-0.005

ismi_resistance

1st

72

14.47 ± 2.49

70

14.59 ± 2.49

0.787

-0.067

ismi_resistance

2nd

32

14.29 ± 2.30

0.107

32

15.25 ± 2.30

-0.391

0.096

-0.565

ismi_discrimation

1st

72

11.97 ± 3.14

70

11.24 ± 3.14

0.168

0.423

ismi_discrimation

2nd

32

11.84 ± 2.69

0.076

32

11.02 ± 2.70

0.131

0.223

0.477

sss_affective

1st

72

10.01 ± 3.51

70

9.87 ± 3.51

0.809

0.075

sss_affective

2nd

32

10.03 ± 2.99

-0.007

32

8.73 ± 3.00

0.602

0.085

0.684

sss_behavior

1st

72

9.88 ± 3.71

70

9.44 ± 3.71

0.488

0.218

sss_behavior

2nd

32

9.71 ± 3.15

0.083

32

8.78 ± 3.16

0.336

0.237

0.471

sss_cognitive

1st

72

8.26 ± 3.66

70

8.14 ± 3.66

0.844

0.060

sss_cognitive

2nd

32

8.68 ± 3.14

-0.206

32

7.29 ± 3.15

0.419

0.080

0.686

sss

1st

72

28.15 ± 10.08

70

27.46 ± 10.08

0.682

0.142

sss

2nd

32

28.32 ± 8.31

-0.034

32

24.90 ± 8.35

0.522

0.102

0.698

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(189.17) = -0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.27)

2st

t(195.68) = 1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.91)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(179.79) = 0.17, p = 0.864, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.03)

2st

t(193.69) = 1.56, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.28 to 2.39)

ras_confidence

1st

t(160.99) = 0.33, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.99)

2st

t(199.03) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.89 to 3.45)

ras_willingness

1st

t(160.61) = 0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.94)

2st

t(199.24) = 2.08, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.80)

ras_goal

1st

t(168.26) = 0.81, p = 0.417, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.48)

2st

t(195.41) = 2.05, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.85)

ras_reliance

1st

t(160.47) = 0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.38)

2st

t(199.32) = 2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.46)

ras_domination

1st

t(175.78) = -1.26, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.28)

2st

t(193.71) = 1.69, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.99)

symptom

1st

t(151.56) = 0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.35)

2st

t(201.36) = -0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-4.80 to 2.51)

slof_work

1st

t(160.72) = -0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.92)

2st

t(199.18) = -0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.14 to 1.92)

slof_relationship

1st

t(158.78) = 0.66, p = 0.509, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.65)

2st

t(200.27) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.84 to 4.14)

satisfaction

1st

t(159.17) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.25 to 3.56)

2st

t(200.06) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.24 to 4.80)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(156.72) = 0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.78)

2st

t(201.28) = 0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.06)

mhc_social

1st

t(160.67) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.54)

2st

t(199.21) = 0.69, p = 0.488, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.32)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(161.04) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.44)

2st

t(198.99) = 0.19, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.55 to 3.09)

resilisnce

1st

t(163.25) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.30)

2st

t(197.75) = 2.53, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.56 to 4.49)

social_provision

1st

t(166.85) = 1.91, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.87)

2st

t(195.98) = 2.78, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.51 to 3.02)

els_value_living

1st

t(161.66) = 1.34, p = 0.181, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.77)

2st

t(198.64) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.25)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(155.39) = 1.31, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.86)

2st

t(201.76) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.19)

els

1st

t(153.85) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.44)

2st

t(202.00) = 1.37, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.73 to 4.04)

social_connect

1st

t(153.89) = -0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-3.55 to 2.85)

2st

t(202.00) = -2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-7.96 to -0.26)

shs_agency

1st

t(155.45) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.50)

2st

t(201.74) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.41 to 3.76)

shs_pathway

1st

t(156.84) = 1.09, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.06)

2st

t(201.23) = 1.03, p = 0.302, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.50)

shs

1st

t(154.67) = 1.03, p = 0.304, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.39 to 4.42)

2st

t(201.92) = 1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.99 to 6.04)

esteem

1st

t(186.11) = -0.21, p = 0.837, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.46)

2st

t(194.75) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.72)

mlq_search

1st

t(170.20) = 0.61, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.52)

2st

t(194.76) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.22)

mlq_presence

1st

t(162.81) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.62)

2st

t(197.99) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.08)

mlq

1st

t(164.05) = 0.48, p = 0.628, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.89)

2st

t(197.33) = -0.04, p = 0.969, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-3.08 to 2.96)

empower

1st

t(156.28) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.03)

2st

t(201.46) = 0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.73)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(174.50) = 0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.94)

2st

t(193.84) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.10)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(161.40) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.31)

2st

t(198.79) = -1.22, p = 0.223, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.15 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st

t(160.51) = -0.24, p = 0.809, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.02)

2st

t(199.30) = -1.73, p = 0.085, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-2.77 to 0.18)

sss_behavior

1st

t(160.22) = -0.69, p = 0.488, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.80)

2st

t(199.47) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.49 to 0.62)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(161.63) = -0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.09)

2st

t(198.66) = -1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.94 to 0.16)

sss

1st

t(156.33) = -0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-4.04 to 2.65)

2st

t(201.44) = -1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-7.53 to 0.69)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(96.33) = 2.24, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(87.61) = 0.99, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.45)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(74.19) = 2.61, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.42 to 3.11)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(73.96) = 1.01, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.81)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(78.98) = 1.93, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.84)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(73.87) = 3.20, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.45 to 1.94)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(84.42) = 2.58, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.74)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(68.49) = -1.79, p = 0.157, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.60 to 0.20)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(74.03) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.47)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(72.82) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.93)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(73.06) = 1.42, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.12)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(71.56) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.14)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(73.99) = 1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.48 to 2.55)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(74.23) = 0.97, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.60)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(75.64) = 2.83, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.03)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(78.02) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.04)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(74.62) = 0.99, p = 0.654, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.26)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(70.75) = 1.21, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.24)

els

1st vs 2st

t(69.83) = 1.24, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.13)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(69.85) = -2.53, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-4.81 to -0.57)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(70.79) = 1.40, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.02)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(71.63) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.19)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(70.32) = 1.06, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.01)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(93.22) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.72)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(80.33) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.85)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(75.36) = 0.71, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.56)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(76.16) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.14)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(71.29) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(83.45) = 1.67, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.46)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(74.46) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.60)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(73.89) = -2.50, p = 0.029, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.05 to -0.23)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(73.71) = -1.40, p = 0.334, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.29)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(74.60) = -1.75, p = 0.170, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.12)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(71.32) = -2.15, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-4.93 to -0.19)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(97.34) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.45)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(88.34) = -1.02, p = 0.624, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.47)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(74.51) = 1.14, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.11)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(74.27) = -1.49, p = 0.280, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.13)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(79.44) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.82)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(74.18) = 1.00, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(85.04) = -1.13, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.19 to 0.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(68.65) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.22 to 1.58)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(74.34) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.90)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(73.10) = -0.73, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.94)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(73.35) = 0.73, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.49)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(71.80) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(74.31) = 1.02, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.29)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(74.55) = 0.92, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.55)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(76.01) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.29)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(78.45) = -1.53, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.19)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(74.95) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.07)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(70.98) = 0.97, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.15)

els

1st vs 2st

t(70.03) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.92)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(70.05) = 1.01, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.19)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(71.01) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.13)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(71.87) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.06)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(70.53) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.00)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(94.14) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(80.83) = 0.92, p = 0.723, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.55)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(75.71) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.49)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(76.54) = 0.86, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.77)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(71.53) = 1.08, p = 0.567, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.53)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(84.04) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.61)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(74.78) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.69)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(74.20) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.92)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(74.02) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.12 to 0.79)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(74.94) = 0.86, p = 0.785, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.38)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(71.56) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.20 to 2.53)

Plot

Clinical significance